Justifications for Insipidity and the Virtual World Idea

Consuetudo · May 2015

Far too many players are becoming false friends in trying to reconcile our interest to disappointing games located amidst the decline of a disappointing genre. The fact of the matter is that if we need to try to find why a game is fun and great, it is not: we have only succeeded in deceiving ourselves.

Why do you blame the player for being unsatisfied? You lambaste the player as if it is his snobbish fault for not being able to enjoy what has been presented to him, when, in fact, it is not that he narrow-mindedly dismisses everything with an elitist haughtiness, refusing to partake in the obvious fun so evidently around him, but that he is literally incapable of enjoying what is there; nor is this some sort of lesson in outgrowing an infectious nostalgia that is crippling his ability to partake normally in what everyone else is enjoying--these are not the case.

What we have before us is a stagnant and dead genre that only disappoints. I promise you this much: that if the truly innovative game were released, the community would delightfully devour it and you would not be present on this forum, but playing that game. That is the precise nature of the crowd: it is stunningly capable of identifying what is good and what is not, and the crowd is increasingly deeming this genre to be kaput.

However, trying to justify that these failure-games are good only continues to support a decrepit industry that ought to collapse. As long as the idiotic consumer continues to blind himself to facts, and tries to convince himself that he is having a fun time by tricks of the mind, he is only running in the wrong direction, helping nothing. Have the courage to say, "these games are not satisfying to me and my expectations are not being met!" This is about more than innocently participating in some idle pleasure, for many people the MMORPG was a significant aspect of their reality, and they are quite lost without it. Those clamoring for virtual worlds are not doing so out of some longing for niche gameplay features, but because they wish to be in a real living community that can supply the experience that the contemporary world cannot supply--and that, friends, is something the MMO does not supply. As if trying to conform to the expectation of those who view the genre as just another game, we have been given games, not worlds, and thus the object which entices a significant population of MMO players is gone, removed.

Well I'm not one to pretend that what we have is sufficient! I echo my demand that I and thousands of others have already ushered forth: I demand a living, breathing virtual world and not these arcadesque combat simulators.

What we need is a revolution in the MMO genre, that great game that will break the mold and make these games fun and viable again. The taste of the audience has become complex and sophisticated. It's time for something new.

ArChWind · May 2015

Almost had me inspired to open it back up.

Almost..

[Deleted User] · May 2015

The user and all related content has been deleted.

Bladestrom · May 2015

Sorry this is another I'm sick of the genre rant.

Millions enjoy the modern MMO that have came out including myself, and those millions are not deranged and deluded, they are playing games and having fun. The issue is people who have grown bored of something but don't want to admit it and move on (for whatever reason)

Bladestrom · May 2015

Il give you an example, in the 90s. I loved RTS games, but I grew out of them, and now when i look at modern RTS they look dull and stagnant to me. However it is my perception that has changed - RTS games have continued to evolve.

My mind not the genre - time to move on.

Fdzzaigl · May 2015

Well aren't you quite the Cicero...

Unlike that figure however, you aren't exactly saying something world-shockingly new here.

Axehilt · May 2015

The OP almost maxed out my Hyperbole Meter.

Seeking understanding of why games are fun doesn't mean they aren't fun. It only increases your understanding of what makes games fun, for either you or for gamers generally.
Human nature -- the player -- is to blame for being unsatisfied. Most people aren't very introspective, but are at least introspective enough to realize that if today's games were released in 1997 their past-gamer-selves would have loved these games much more than the MMORPGs of the past. The genre continues to provide excellent games, though perhaps none as solid as WOW, and it's easy to ignore a handful of ultra-veterans who've spent many thousands of hours burning themselves out on the genre compared with the millions of gamers enjoying these games daily.
Genres are by definition stagnant. A genre defines the parameters of a game. Games within a genre shift within those confines, but fundamentally aren't going to become something significantly different.
Beyond that MMORPGs are unusually stagnant due to being big-budget games. If innovation was your focus, you'd play tiny indie games.
The crowd is somewhat good at identifying what's good. I witness this firsthand in my work balancing videogames: units A, B, and C are competitively viable, but unit C is completely shunned by the majority of players who don't understand it's value. I witnessed this firsthand playing PS2 too: there were certain weapons deemed underpowered which were extremely unpopular, and meanwhile I'd use those weapons and do just as good as with any weapon (noticeably better in the case of burst-weapons.) In a broader sense, many genres of games have waned not because there are bad modern offerings (SC2 for RTSes) but because those genres just happen to no longer be in fashion this year.
It's complete nonsense to claim there are some who are "quite lost" without MMORPGs existing. Mankind managed to survive through all of recorded and unrecorded history up until the year 1995 when the first MMORPG (M59) was released. I'm sure they'll manage to be just fine with MMORPGs which are slightly different from their personal tastes.
It's possible you speak for thousands. It's certain that millions have spoken (more loudly: with money) of a strong preference of post-WOW style MMORPGs. To state their preference simply: they want a fun game, not a boring virtual world.

[Deleted User] · May 2015

The user and all related content has been deleted.

nariusseldon · May 2015

Originally posted by greenreen

That's the bottom line. The leeches need to be removed from the equation.

Obvious not . otherwise there won't be any F2P games ... all games will be either B2P or sub-only. Remember that free riding is only possible if the devs allow it.

If they make it possible, is there a good reason why people should not take advantage of it? It is not like devs have to make f2p games.

Axehilt · May 2015

Originally posted by greenreen
I wouldn't have loved the games I don't like today. You can only talk for yourself. If you longed for these sort of games can you recall a post you made about it where you did.

Why does it always lead to insults. You are a burnout if you don't like what is populous. How many millions are there who are dissatisfied. Do you expect everyone who dislikes something to take their time out to vote on polls and make posts. Do you get personal e-mails from people when they stop wearing Nikes and switch to Birkenstocks. On what planet does everyone have to chime in on everything at all times to give their personal review and heartfelt messages.

You have no headcount for those who don't talk. And those who do talk are often told to shut up and deal with it. How can you expect to ever gauge reality when you don't listen to the voices telling you what you don't want to hear. Your post to them wasn't listening, it was attempting to correct them.

Genres are not stagnant. They only have defined properties. How those properties of the larger object are presented can change and the gameplay around them too.

Take walking around. It was enhanced with jumping and running. It became riding a mount. Which then became a flying mount. Then there were portals and fast travel. They all have one thing in common - they are properties of the action movement for the character itself. They aren't stagnant and they don't have to be - tomorrow people could walk on their hands in a game, if it's programmed that way. They weren't stagnant within the genre. They were improved upon.

A better representation of that is space. At one point your character only stayed on one plane. Then games started digging and building. With terraforming you move more directions and create planes.

What we are missing hasn't even come yet. And it won't come as long as people settle and don't speak up. But as you mention below, only the indies can bring this innovation because the corporates are tied by bean counters above them who make decisions on what is going to be made.

It's possible that they speak for more than thousands. It's certain too that the about 90% of those who won't pay for the games have spoken too in their groups of millions (more loudly: with withholding money) that they neither intend on, nor plan on contributing to gaming as a paid hobby. As a developer you wouldn't be too smart to overlook that you can give them a product and they still spit in your face while using it for free. Those aren't satisfied customers. Those are ground feeders, barnacles, parasites or flat out cheap skates. They don't want a "fun game", they want a "host".

Yeah so, I'm a dirty rotten scoundrel because I won't play free to play games. But you know what, I don't feed off them and use their resources without paying. They've got 90% or more of their participants telling them every day they aren't good enough to get paid and they still call it a success. Both of us dislike the free games. I just chose not to lie to them and waste either of our time pretending to like each other just because they'll buy me off by spending some bandwidth.

What you overlook is the niche game. I'd rather have 20k ppl in my game that paid me regularly than 100k there with 8k of them paying me 5.00 a month or less and the whales be someone I had to cater to and add to Skype and ask why they weren't playing this week when they are less than 10% of my population. That has already happened. Whales will build this stuff because they are willing to pay. Funny how games can cater to the 10% when they are cash shop but not the 10% you imagine as still wanting a sub game or an innovative game? Whatever you want to use as percentage of the thousands you imagine compared to the millions imagined elsewhere. On one hand small percentages mean something, on the other somehow they lose value. They don't lose value in a niche.

People who want to sub should also be building this stuff - they are willing to pay. That's the bottom line. The leeches need to be removed from the equation.

Yes back then many gamers and myself were talking about how MMORPGs had noticeably poor gameplay-to-time ratios. That's when the word "timesink" started ringing out as the most common complaint. The rise began around 1999 when especially timesink-intensive MMORPGs (EQ1, AC1) were released in the same year as Q3, UT, Planescape, AOE2, System Shock 2, Homeworld, Counterstrike, and Team Fortress - a long list of games which provided plenty of gameplay without excessive timesinks.

Why do you consider it an insult to state a simple reality of how people consume entertainment products? If someone engages in the same category of thing excessively, they're going to burn out on it. This is especially true of games, where the most common source of fun (pattern mastery; Koster, 2003) is reliant on having new patterns to consume.

How many millions are dissatisfied? Um...all of the millions. How many humans do you know who are completely satisfied?

No, genres are quite stagnant. When I play Battlefield 4 it has sprinting and Wolf3D didn't have that, but at the end of the day in spite of all the little innovations both games are caged by the idea that they're about aiming and shooting. MMORPGs have had a similar amount of innovation within their cage. But the genre is still a cage with clearly defined boundaries.

I would agree there are millions of potential gamers interested in new types of games. However the OP seems unlikely to describe a new type of game that millions would be interested in; it would involve the perfect storm of him actually having a vision of a new type of game, the ability to communicate that vision, and that vision actually being something millions want. Quite unlikely.

We should also clarify that withholding money definitely doesn't speak as loudly as money does. When a business earns money, there is an observable event: the company did X and made a lot of money. Whereas potential business opportunities are by definition invisible because nobody is filling that niche -- so nobody knows there is money to be made.

I make F2P games. If my game isn't fun, people very rapidly stop playing. So it's definitely untrue that the game is made for 10% of the players. The more players having fun, the more people might potentially feel the game is worth spending money on. So I work daily to make things more fun for everyone.

Non-payers are not leeches. They're players. The strongest advantage F2P offers for players is they can play as long as they need to in order to find out if they're really enjoying a game or not, and then choose whether to spend. They're not putting money into the game until they've had fun.

[Deleted User] · May 2015

The user and all related content has been deleted.

Loktofeit · May 2015

Originally posted by greenreen
Originally posted by Axehilt
Originally posted by greenreen...snip

...snip

I make F2P games. If my game isn't fun, people very rapidly stop playing. So it's definitely untrue that the game is made for 10% of the players. The more players having fun, the more people might potentially feel the game is worth spending money on. So I work daily to make things more fun for everyone.

And do you consider yourself the norm or an exception to free to play games in general.

All the articles about whaling and the ways to monetize - you don't follow those reports, right, you just try to make a good game. This is very hard to believe you realize. Are the games an artistic release instead of a monetary thing?

I think I could make a poll tonight and ask free to play how many people feel like they are being nickel and dimed and/or scammed or whales are supporting versus how many think they are getting better games every year from free to play games and we could find out how many are playing the versions you think you are making.

I'm going to guess it out ahead of time that more people will say there is more scamming than great development going on.

I'm not trying to call you a liar. There are always good apples in a barrel of rotten ones but I don't think the general view is that your style would be the norm if you are being genuine.

What he wrote is the norm as far as I have seen, and those reports don't contradict anything he has written. It's hard for you to believe because you have an extremely low opinion of your peers. You feel that gamers, except you of course, are weak-willed and will not only play a game they don't find fun... and continue to play a game they don't find fun... and then shell out money for a game they don't find fun after playing it for, on the average, three weeks or so... solely because it was evilly crafted to play on psychological weaknesses far too powerful for the gamer's mind and sense of self-control to fight.

Or... maybe the devs also try to make a fun game.

That may not be the answer you want, but don't worry. Consy is sure to spam the forum with three or four more of these threads over the next week or two, so you'll have plenty of new opportunities to get the answer you want. Better yet, just visit any of the previous threads and find the replies that work best for you. Here are his recent ones:

http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/431538

http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/421190

http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/420853

http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/420042

http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/419165

http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/418918

http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/418579

[Deleted User] · May 2015

The user and all related content has been deleted.

KenFisher · May 2015

Drat. I saw the title and was hoping for something else.

There's not really much for me to reply. Corporations provide what people will pay money for, and people pay money for it.

Is the MMORPG genre what I was hoping for? Heck no. Well, WoW's TBC was pretty close. Sort of.

Does the genre, the corporations, or the player give a rat's ass that the genre is not meeting my desires? Again no.

So where does that leave me?

I went through a bitchy disgruntled phase for a while, but that has long since decayed into not caring.

Now I play RPGs on portables, and mess around in a customized pseudo-Azeroth in privacy. I'm okay with that. The genre could fall off the face of the Earth tomorrow and I wouldn't notice. Well, except for the forums, which I still haunt out of habit.

Axehilt · May 2015

Originally posted by greenreen
And do you consider yourself the norm or an exception to free to play games in general.

All the articles about whaling and the ways to monetize - you don't follow those reports, right, you just try to make a good game. This is very hard to believe you realize. Are the games an artistic release instead of a monetary thing?

I think I could make a poll tonight and ask free to play how many people feel like they are being nickel and dimed and/or scammed or whales are supporting versus how many think they are getting better games every year from free to play games and we could find out how many are playing the versions you think you are making or your peers are involved in making.

I'm going to guess it out ahead of time that more people will say there is more scamming than great development going on.

I'm not trying to call you a liar. There are always good apples in a barrel of rotten ones but I don't think the general view is that your style would be the norm if you are being genuine.

No, those articles are fine. They describe how whales are important. But whales aren't born out of nothing, and a player needs to have fun in a game to have the potential to become a whale. Whales aren't paying for games they dislike.

A poll, especially here, would only show the typical expected core gamer hatred of F2P. The hatred is based far more on the bandwagon effect than on logic.

For example, your use of the word "scam". Let's say you go to two care dealerships:

At the first one, you're able to drive each car around as much as you want.
At the second, large car-sized boxes are sold. They're painted magnificently with the cars the dealership claims are inside.

...which one sounds more prone to scams? The one where you can try before paying, or the one where you can't see the actual product until after you pay?

In the case of games there are almost no scams whatsoever across either type of game, but certainly, logically there's more accountability with a game players can try before paying than the other way around.

Reklaw · May 2015

Originally posted by Consuetudo
Far too many players are becoming false friends in trying to reconcile our interest to disappointing games located amidst the decline of a disappointing genre. The fact of the matter is that if we need to try to find why a game is fun and great, it is not: we have only succeeded in deceiving ourselves.

Sorry but I only play games I find fun to play, sorry that you might decieve yourself.

Why do you blame the player for being unsatisfied? You lambaste the player as if it is his snobbish fault for not being able to enjoy what has been presented to him, when, in fact, it is not that he narrow-mindedly dismisses everything with an elitist haughtiness, refusing to partake in the obvious fun so evidently around him, but that he is literally incapable of enjoying what is there; nor is this some sort of lesson in outgrowing an infectious nostalgia that is crippling his ability to partake normally in what everyone else is enjoying--these are not the case.

What we have before us is a stagnant and dead genre that only disappoints. I promise you this much: that if the truly innovative game were released, the community would delightfully devour it and you would not be present on this forum, but playing that game. That is the precise nature of the crowd: it is stunningly capable of identifying what is good and what is not, and the crowd is increasingly deeming this genre to be kaput.

Why do you consider the genre stagnant and dead? I mean posting that much should also place a explanation why a genre that is enjoy'd by millions of players is a dead genre? Just because something doesn't fit the way you want doesn't mean it's dead. And with current times it's just somewhat silly to asume that anybody who has found that great game suddenly disappears from forums. Perhaps you might have missed the acces to internet from all sorts of connections ranging from phone's/tablet etc...

However, trying to justify that these failure-games are good only continues to support a decrepit industry that ought to collapse. As long as the idiotic consumer continues to blind himself to facts, and tries to convince himself that he is having a fun time by tricks of the mind, he is only running in the wrong direction, helping nothing. Have the courage to say, "these games are not satisfying to me and my expectations are not being met!" This is about more than innocently participating in some idle pleasure, for many people the MMORPG was a significant aspect of their reality, and they are quite lost without it. Those clamoring for virtual worlds are not doing so out of some longing for niche gameplay features, but because they wish to be in a real living community that can supply the experience that the contemporary world cannot supply--and that, friends, is something the MMO does not supply. As if trying to conform to the expectation of those who view the genre as just another game, we have been given games, not worlds, and thus the object which entices a significant population of MMO players is gone, removed.

And this is one of the bigger problems I've seen on forums, instead of gamers understanding that we are all individuals with our own wants/needs and likes you seem to consider those who enjoy that you do not enjoy to be idiots?

Well I'm not one to pretend that what we have is sufficient! I echo my demand that I and thousands of others have already ushered forth: I demand a living, breathing virtual world and not these arcadesque combat simulators.

I do not demand such a game but I do hope and wish for such a game. But also leave enough room for those games you, me or some other gamers might not like because you can bet on it others might like that what you don't.

What we need is a revolution in the MMO genre, that great game that will break the mold and make these games fun and viable again. The taste of the audience has become complex and sophisticated. It's time for something new.

Don't get me wrong I really hope there will come a day this genre goes beyond what we already can find in single/mulitplayer games in terms of feature's that give a sence of a virtual world, but also feel there is enough room in this genre to have something for everyone.

Loktofeit · May 2015

Originally posted by greenreen
Is any free to play game going to stay open when no one pays and they all play for free

That question is one I'd expect from someone with far less understanding of the business world, but maybe I'm assuming too much on your part. It is the same as asking if sub MMOs will crumble if people decide they don't want to pay a sub even if it is a fantastic game. The game either adapts to how people want to pay and deliver what they want to pay for or it closes its doors.

Why do you feel MMOs function different from every other business?

Axehilt · May 2015

Originally posted by Demogorgon
You're full of it... sigh

No its more like one is letting you test dirve a car that only has 3 wheels, a chasis, a strearing Wheel & a shity motor. Then they tell you that it would be more enjoyable if you did like that guys over there who bought a 4th Wheel & a nice red body. The car is free so why not invest a little eh?

On the other side you have that boxed car, which is nice and feature complete. You know that the car Inside IS feature complete as there are laws that make sure it is at the very least close to what is advertized on the box. This car has a fix reasonnable price.

So bottom line, you either drive a 3 Wheeler crap car, or you upgrade it to the lvl of the boxed car for twice the price or more. Thats what is and nothing else.

edit: So you can get from point A to point B for free, but you better hope there's no steep slop or rainning, cuz then... yeah you get the picture.

Calm down and think rationally.

Bad car dealerships exist, even with the try-before-buy model. You're not completely protected, but you have way more information about the product before money changes hands (you've actually played it!) compared with the marketing-driven buy-before-try model.

When a game feels like a 3-wheel car, players leave. They don't spend.

If the game feels like a nice (and 4-wheeled) car that the player could see themselves spending a lot of time with, that's when they're more likely to pay.

The "laws" part of your post makes me wonder if you've ever purchased a non-F2P game. Anyone who's bought 10+ B2P games knows that many (most?) of those games aren't matching up to the marketing ideals that you're being sold. Quality is the main point -- you can try the game in F2P and experience the quality, but you can't in a B2P game. Missing features are only a side point, and still favor the F2P model because if that car has 3 wheels you're going to drive it and notice. Whereas if you're buying something hidden inside the marketing box, then afterwards you're going to listen angrily as the dealer explains to you, "If you look closely you can see that in the box image we don't actually show you all 4 wheels, so technically we sold you exactly what this awesome car image shows you."

Again, it all stems from these simple, logical truths:

You experience the game before money trades hands in F2P. If you don't like it, you won't pay.
You don't get that with B2P.
...so you have less information.
...and the purchase is riskier.
...in large part because the purchase is driven by marketing and hype, instead of whether you're actually having fun.

[Deleted User] · May 2015

The user and all related content has been deleted.

Cecropia · May 2015

Edit: wrong thread

booniedog96 · May 2015

I don't know man, I'm having fun in my MMOs. I'll cut up some cheese to go with that whine for ya though because I'd sure hate to be in your perceived reality. Find some professional help too.

Cheerios

Iselin · May 2015

Axe is right. Most people can't be bothered with even the tiny bit of introspection required to recognize the misanthropic dribble that these threads are before they post them...

TLDR for all of these threads: "You are all idiotic sheep but I am not."

AIMonster · May 2015

Why does a game have to innovate to be fun? It's very difficult to come up with something innovative when gaming has been around for 20+ years. That said, GW2 did innovate in significant ways, so why are the jaded masses not jumping on that game to play. IMO Evolution > Revolution. Look at some of the top scoring games on Metacritic for examples. Grand Theft Auto V and IV which didn't really do much in the way of innovate, but score higher with critics (and sold more copies) than GTA III which was innovative at the time. Perfect Dark on the N64 which basically took the Goldeneye 64 formula and improved on it. Uncharted 2 and Batman: Arkham Knights which were both sequels to games AND took ideas from many other games in terms of gameplay mechanics. I don't understand why people complain about needing something innovative, especially when a lot of people on these very forums are nostalgia obsessed and want use to go back to the EQ, UO, or even Vanilla WoW days.

Personally for me I am tried of a few things like linear quest hubs and tab targeting combat, but for someone else they may prefer that although there are plenty of games that are good options for both I don't really think it's safe to dismiss any game that uses both or either as being bad or boring.

Virtual world is a meaningless term without context also. Actually what qualifies as a virtual world? I'd love to hear you explain it without hyperbole like the "world is living/breathing" or "the community supplies the experience" especially when both fit the trend of sandbox MMOs we've been getting lately. If you are looking for something like Everquest, well wouldn't that be considered a step back in innovation because the game came out over 15 years ago?

Loktofeit · May 2015

Originally posted by greenreen
Free Trials make the car comparison insignificant. Sub games had ways of letting people test drive the material.

...3-6 months after release, at the earliest.

AIMonster · May 2015

Originally posted by Loktofeit
Originally posted by greenreen
Free Trials make the car comparison insignificant. Sub games had ways of letting people test drive the material.

...3-6 months after release, at the earliest.

A lot of sub games give players guest passes that can be used at release as an incentive for purchasing the game so I think the comparison is still valid..

Axehilt · May 2015

Originally posted by Demogorgon
Spin all you want m8, I've made my point clear enough.

Sure. I've made my point through facts and logic. You've made yours through emotional bandwagon-charged rhetoric. Things are quite clear.

Howdy, Stranger!

Justifications for Insipidity and the Virtual World Idea

Comments

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

Justifications for Insipidity and the Virtual World Idea

Comments